Statement of Principle #1: Ordered Liberty

As promised here is the first statement of principle. But first I want to point something out about how this list is being constructed.  The principles are going to be listed in a strict hierarchy, meaning that principle one is always given priority over every other principle, principle two is given priority over every other principles, except one, and so forth.  What this means is I believe that you cannot fulfill principle six legitimately by violating principle one.  With no further ado, Principle One is:

The basic liberties as described in the Bill of Rights, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14^th amendment are inviolable and paramount. All governments (state and federal) may not violate these liberties legitimately under any circumstances.

Policy consequences: I am, therefore, opposed to most of the War of Terror policies that Bush enacted and Obama has continued to codify into to American law, all of these policies need to be repealed sooner rather than later. These include, but are not limited, to The US PATRIOT Act, The Military Commissions Act of 2006, The FISA Amendment Act of 2008, and the relevant sections of The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Governing consequences: The very first question asked about any proposed law ought to be “Does this violate any person’s basic liberties?” If the answer is no, the state has no business enacting that law. Conversely, if the action under discussion is to repeal an existing law, the question is “Does the current law violate anyone’s basic liberties?” if the answer is yes, the state is obligated to repeal the law.

Explanation:

Individuals, by virtue of having self-directed agency (autonomy), are naturally granted the ability to run their affairs as they see fit as long they do not harm anybody else.  The chief aim of government then is to allow individuals the needed social and political space to pursue their life goals and plans, without undue interference from others.  The basics liberties form the side constraints on state action.  Which is to say they curtail state power; the state cannot interfere with the private sphere created by these rights of its citizens.  I don’t think this principle is going to be very controversial among my target audience, so I can leave it at that.

Points that need to be empathized:

I am including the 2^nd Amendment under this.  Gun control laws in this country are usually ill-designed and many (if not all) of them are unconstitutional on their face. The 2^nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and it’s about time that Democrats act like it is.

Second, I believe in the imposition doctrine. This doctrine holds that the Bill of Rights is applied to state governments vis-à-vis the 14^th Amendment.  This means state governments are not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights anymore than the federal government is.  However, the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, in context of this and the constitution generally, still make it clear that states are given great latitude to enact local policies as they see fit and they have powers that the federal government does not have. As such I believe in States’ Rights insofar as this notion does not conflict with individuals’ liberties. I will say more about this topic later.

Third, the 1^st Amendment’s Establishment Clause contains the concept of the Separation of Church and State.  This point will also be addressed in more detail later, but I take the Separation of Church and State to simply be the state is required to remain neutral in matters of religion, that the state may not forbid religious expression in the public sphere nor may it promote sectarian religious views.